SFBG › Politics Blog ›

What the fuck, Chuck: No, Ed Lee is not God

11.08.12 - 2:55 pm | Tim Redmond |
(75)
Share

So who were the big winners in the election? You could argue Ron Conway; you could argue surprise D5 winner London Breed. But to say it was all about Ed Lee?

Actually, no.

Every one of the initiatives that Lee backed was also supported by the entire progressive leadership on the board and almost every progressive group in the city, and other than Prop. B, there was little in the way of funded or credible opposition. The Yes on C campaign was run by the affordable housing folks, not the mayor. The mayor didn't even endorse Prop. A, the City College parcel tax, until late in the game.

Oh, and the mayor's appointee to the Community College Board? Got clobbered. The guy the mayor wanted in District 7? Out of the running.

The real story here -- aside from the supervisors races, where I don't think any one operation or political alliance won overall -- was the remarkable civic consensus on the ballot measures. If Ed Lee had been out of town all fall, they all still would have won.

I know Chuck thinks the mayor is the greatest ever, but in this case, his impact was at best a wash.

 

 

 

Comments

Ross knows what side his buns are buttered on

i wouldn't be surprised if he starts hanging
out naked in the Castro (sans towel, natch).

Posted by Snoozers on Nov. 09, 2012 @ 11:04 pm
District 5

If big money didn't work against Eric Mar in District 1, why does anyone think it worked against Olague in District 5? I'm not a progressive, but the reality is that District 5 voters won't let a "moderate" mayor appoint its supervisor. If Olague had voted against Mirkarimi, that only would have reinforced voters' perception that she was a stooge for Mayor Lee.

Posted by Rob Anderson on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 10:16 am
Agreed. Olague prevented an embarassing loss by voting

correctly -- according to public opinion and law -- in the Lee/Mirkarimi matter.

I've been meaning to comment here, but the weak tone of this essay completes my surprisingly profound feeling of disapointment (betrayal seems a tad overly strong) in the SFBG lately.

Referring to Mirkarimi's improper and unfortunate arm grab simply as "domestic violence" is a weak capitulation to the DV talkers -- who themselves have every reason to be circumspect themselves.

Those who booed these supposed women's advocates may have acted improperly, but their ire was *entirely* justified.

We need a grand coalition, but this coalition need not include duplicitous servants of the 1% who masquerade as our allies by donning some identity-politic disguises.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 12:15 pm
Olague prevented an embarrassing loss?

I don't get it. She lost, arguably in part because of her vote on Mirkarimi. And she was embarrassed.

Mirkarimi's acts (and there's a lot of evidence to show that there was more than just one arm grab, regardless of what the ethics commission allowed) were domestic violence, Lilli. They just were.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 12:30 pm
Olague's vote *arguably* preserved as many votes

for her as it cost her. Along with the stated opinions of other candidates for the D5 seat -- including that of London Breed who bested her -- the DV maven-financed push poll for D5 establishes that.

As for you "lot of evidence" -- that is a fabrication.

Once again: Ross arm grab was not right, and everybody knows that.

On the other hand, to falsely extrapolate from a momentary lapse which does not indicate an intent to cause injury some more serious violence tendencies and/or behavior is wrong.

To equate an arm grab with a serious case of domestic violence such as Mason Mayer's two-fisted beat down girlfriend -- as was apparently done by DA Gascon when he settled the younger man's case with the exact same punishment he exacted from Ross Mirkarimi -- is wrong.

By-the-way, I mistakenly thought I was responding to a comment on Steven Jones "Practice of Politics" essay above. It was Steven's essay in which Ross' arm grab was cavalierly described as "domestic violence"; which though strictly speaking is true, contributes to the manifestly unfair treatment Ross and his family was accorded in this matter.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 1:09 pm
Olague and District 5

Yes, the Mirkarimi vote was a wash politically for Olague: some voters were offended, but some voters agreed. That she was appointed by Mayor Lee, who she supported over prog candidates, was surely the most damaging thing to her chances. Even so the real political differences between her and Breed are few. If we weren't saddled with RCV, there would have been a run-off between the two, and we might have had a serious discussion of the issues. RCV encourages candidates to adopt a bland, issue-free approach in their campaigns. Why take a stand on an important issue when you can fuzz it up and still get elected?

Posted by Rob Anderson on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 2:21 pm
We don't agree with regard to preferential order voting.

And nobody has been "saddled" by it -- though admittedly if the few thousand voters who couldn't stomach putting either Olague *or* Breed among their top three choices had had an opportunity to voice their opinions with regard to fourth, fifth, and sixth choices, just maybe Olague would have come out on top.

Remember, instant run-off voting was designed so that people could vote their hearts but still not become disenfranchised when their top choice didn't make it into the run off and they would be forced to chose among two candidates neither of whom that they could support.

IRV was designed to avoid low-turnout runoff elections where downtown money might hold sway.

As has been pointed out to me elsewhere, the initiative which gave us IRV already includes a mandate for the election department to allow for as many choices as there are candidates when the equipment available allows that.

Such a change is overdue in my opinion and its implementation will put to rest any reactionary idea of returning to the original system; that was a system which can properly be said to be one we were "saddled" with.

One should never have to consult polls before an election to decide which candidate among many we might vote for so that our vote counts for something.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 3:07 pm
What the fuck, Tim: No, Ross

What the fuck, Tim: No, Ross Mirkarimi is NOT god!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 9:56 am
Are you messedup?

Who said anything about people being God? Only Tea Party minds are small enough to think of politicians as Gods. Ross is a man like other men and voting for him does not mean deification.

Posted by Akvanediv on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 6:49 am
Looks more like a play on

Looks more like a play on Tim's title for this article lilli, I'm sure no one but you actually thinks Ross is a god!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 2:09 pm
"Only Tea Party minds are small enough... politicians as Gods."

Too true, Akvanediv. It also relates to their ultimate core belief that they should be told what to do by a king; one in possession of "divine right" to rule.

All of one piece too with this mistaken idea that anyone who voices a contradiction to their belief system is a solitary and isolated figure. When two or more such individuals appear on forum as this, they reason that it actually be one and the same person using multiple identities -- with sublime irony, of course, since obviously it's a trick they engage in regularly, no doubt convinced that by doing so they give proper representation to members of a larger unified hive-mind that they stand together with but whose voices are muted through godless persecution.

Posted by lillipubicans on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 4:47 pm
Practice of Politics

Fuck fuckidy fuck fuck, fuck fuck fuck.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 11:02 am
Olague

Ms. Olague lost for many reasons. Attributing this to her vote on Mirkarimi is a gross over simplification. Here we go:

1) She never got the job by being elected in the first place. Therefore she had never shown an ability to actually campaign and win.
2) She had no real base that was for her. Therefore she had to rely on "other" reasons to get votes.
3) The voters were divided specially the progressives. Without a unifying force they went all over the map.

Here is a more detailed analysis:

Olague was considered to be "Lee"'s person until she voted for Mirkarimi. Progressives never trusted her. Initially they were pretty much against her. Then after her vote she got a portion of progressive support but far from all of it; even then only reluctantly because many thought she is not being a real progressive. Her other hope was the "moderates" who might have supported her before Mirkarimi vote. But not after the Mirkarimi vote. That left her with a percentage of the progressive vote. Not enough to win but enough to fracture the vote and let London get ahead.

Now if and when there is a Mirkarimi vote it will be different. He has the full support of progressives. With no divisions and him to unify them. Whether you like him or not he knows how to win elections. He has done it before and will do it again. He also has the sympathy of many who see a vote for him as one against the Tea Party lynching. You want to spend 500K? Do it and propel him to Mayor and onto Governor.

Posted by Akvanediv on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 6:47 am
Olague committed political

Olague committed political suicide when she voted to reinstate Ross,
And her payback for that was Avalos, Campos, Kim, Agnos' endorsements, ofcourse after they all threw Davis to the curb.

Now, Avalos, Campos and Kim are groin sweating while they wait for their decisions to reinstate their DV Buddy will bite them in their posterior.

Mar's running high as he made the right decision and overwhelming best his much richer adversary.

Ross should at least offer Olague a job as his chief of staff.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 2:16 pm
Olague badly needs a job

She's out of her current one in January and doesn't have particularly strong prospects for another. I do hope someone helps her out.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 3:08 pm
Just imagine how different the result for Olague might have been

-- a result different too, of course, for all of San Francisco and San Francisco's politics -- if she'd come out with the stark truth when questioned about Mayor Lee's perjury.

I think her previous waffling over IRV, mistaken vote on the planning commission, and possibly generalized lack of acumen would have been completely forgotten; certainly any whiff that she was an agent of the Willie Brown machine would have been laid to rest.

"Yes. Mayor Lee asked me what I thought. It appears he just lied while under oath"; what a difference that would have made!

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 2:35 pm
LOL, Olague loses to someone from the center and your

conclusion from that is that she should have been more left-wing?

Only Lilli would make such an inane inferential leap.

Olague lost because she supported a wife beater for sheriff, knowing that the people disagreed by a significant majority.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 2:48 pm
Amusing indeed, your explicit identification of truth-telling as

"left wing."

"LOL!"

Posted by lillipubicans on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 3:03 pm
All politicians lie but the act of supporting Ross was a

very distinct idelogical elft-wing gambit that backfired on Olague horribly.

If she'd voted to oust Ross, like Mar did, the left would not have a more reliable ally in D5.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 5:53 pm
Let me get this right: you are the same "Guest" who proclaimed

that the SFBG endorsed Olague, but simply repeated and expounded on your nonsensical opinions and theories when you were instead explicitly asked to provide a citation to prove your original premise.

And now we have [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah].

Posted by lillipubicans on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 6:16 pm
lilli is the Limbaugh of the Left

Right now Republicans are saying the same thing: "If only we were more right-wing - THEN we would have won the election."

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 3:06 pm
Yep, it makes no more sense for the GOP than it does for

rabid SF leftists.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 5:55 pm
"Limbaugh?" Since you are mistaken, I view it as a compliment.

Obviously I have elicited a feeling of justifiable discomfort within you.

Troll II, I just caught myself thinking you to be a sort of Rush Limbaugh as well... though I had to coin the term "quarter-wit" in order to properly qualify it.

Posted by lillipubicans on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 6:22 pm
Xorauguyna

swiguepewig xaikalitag JerSuefeMes http://uillumaror.com - iziananatt BrobreVek http://gusannghor.com BaniHienaitty

Posted by Demaemiain on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 10:20 am
Xorauguyna

swiguepewig xaikalitag JerSuefeMes http://uillumaror.com - iziananatt BrobreVek http://gusannghor.com BaniHienaitty

Posted by Demaemiain on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 10:20 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Related articles

  • Who will push progressive taxes in 2012?

  • A moratorium on progress

  • Sorting out a strange election

    What the Nov. 6 results mean -- and don't mean